Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21121 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -58 Year- 2016 Thana -KANKARBAGH District- PATNA ====================================================== Rahul Kumar, Son of Narayan Singh, Resident of Village- Dhuria, P.S.- Asarganj, District- Munger, at present Resident of Village- Ram Nagar (Dariyapur) , P.S.- N.T.P.C. Barh, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Smt. Meena Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner wants to renew the prayer of bail which was earlier rejected by order dated 22.10.2016 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 41660 of 2016, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 22.02.2016, there is no legal and cogent material against him, the trial has not been concluded within six months and the petitioner was given liberty to renew his prayer for bail if at no fault, up till now only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and in near future the trial is not likely to be concluded and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21121 of 2017 (2) dt.21-06-2017 2/2 submitting that from possession of the petitioner mobile was recovered by which ransom was demanded.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer of the bail, again prayer of the bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 58 of 2016 pending in the court of learned J.M.1st Class, Patna However, the learned trail Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within four months, failing which if the petitioner at no fault, may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T